Shevuot 8a (ח.) — the Talmud in English

And we further considered this:

idolatry as well

is difficult.

What are the circumstances?

How could we have entertained the possibility that the internal goat atone for this? After all,

if

it concerns one who acted

intentionally—

he is liable to execution. If it concerns one who acted unintentionally—

he is liable to bring an individual offering!?

And we answer as above:

It concerns one who acted intentionally, but they did not warn him. Or

or

one who acted unintentionally, but it did not become known to him

that he had sinned!

And likewise we considered this:

bloodshed as well

is difficult.

What are the circumstances? If he acted intentionally—

he is liable to execution; if he acted unintentionally—

he is liable to exile!?

And we answer: There are three possibilities:

he acted intentionally but they did not warn him; he acted unintentionally and it did not become known to him; alternatively, it concerns those who are not subject to exile [for example,

he threw a stone, and after he threw it, the person who was killed stuck out his head, and was killed as a result].

The Master said: One might have thought that this goat atones for these three types of ritual impurity. Therefore, the verse states “from the impurities,” but not for all impurities. What do we find that the verse singled out from the category of all impurities—

the ritual impurity of the Temple and its sacred offerings

for which one is liable to bring an adjustable offering—

so too here,

in the atonement provided by the internal goat,

it is the ritual impurity of the Temple and its sacred offerings, this is the statement of Rabbi Yehuda.

And the Gemara explains:

What does it mean that the verse singled out

this impurity?

That one brings

a sin offering for it

which varies according to one’s means,

whereas for the other transgressions one brings a fixed sin offering.

But the Gemara analyzes this:

Say that perhaps the internal goat comes to atone for the sin of

that the inner goat comes to atone for the sin of

idolatry. And what distinguishes

this sin from the other sins—

A mnemonic: idolatry, a woman after childbirth, a leper, a nazirite

In that

one brings

for the sin of idolatry

a female goat

alone,

and not a female sheep.

Whereas for the other sins one brings either a female sheep or a female goat!?

Rav Kahana said: We are speaking of the verse having singled something out

that the Torah made

in order to be lenient.

We must derive by means of what we find elsewhere that the verse singled out a case in which it was lenient, such as the internal goat, which is lenient for an individual, as he need not spend his own money, but achieves atonement through the communal offering.

But this,

the sin offering for idolatry,

is singled out to be stringent,

as the verse was more stringent in its regard than with respect to the other transgressions punishable by karet: for unwitting idolatry one must specifically bring a female goat, and if he finds only a female goat that costs a great deal, he must bring it despite himself.

And we still considered this:

Say that the goat comes to atone for the ritual impurity of

that the goat comes to atone for the impurity of

a woman after childbirth, as we find that the verse singled her out to be lenient compared with the other types of ritual impurity,

since we find that the Torah was lenient regarding her by requiring her to bring a sliding-scale offering,

in that she brings

an offering

which varies according to one’s means,

rather than a fixed offering. And the atonement of the goat on Yom Kippur would benefit her, for if Yom Kippur passed and she had still not brought her offering, she would be permitted to eat sacrificial food and would not need to bring an offering!?

Rav Hoshaya said: “For all their sins”

is written,

and not “for all their impurities.”

The goat comes to atone for a sin or to shield one from punishment for a sin; it does not come to purify. By contrast, the offering of a woman after childbirth does not come on account of a sin, but in order to purify her so that she may eat sacrificial food.

And we raise an objection:

But according to Rabbi Shimon ben Yoḥai, who says that a woman after childbirth is also a sinner [since when she is in labor she swears that she will no longer have relations with her husband], and her offering comes on account of a sin,

and her offering comes for a sin,

what can be said?

According to his view, we should say that the internal goat comes to atone for a woman after childbirth, since we find that the verse was lenient with regard to her by requiring an adjustable offering.

And we answer:

Rabbi Shimon follows his own reasoning, as he says

in a baraita:

It is established from its context

that the atonement of the internal goat is for the ritual impurity of the Temple and its sacred offerings, as it is written, “And he shall atone for the Sanctuary, from the impurities”—

from the impurities of sacred things!

And we still considered this:

Say: a leper

is the one who achieves atonement through the internal goat, since we find that the verse was lenient with him by requiring an adjustable offering? And we answer:

Rav Hoshaya said: “For all their sins” is written, and not “for all their impurities.”

A leper is not a sinner; rather, he requires purification in order to eat sacrificial food.

But there is still a question:

And according to Shmuel bar Naḥmani, who says that afflictions come for seven things,

including for slander, bloodshed, and so forth, and according to him a leper is a sinner,

what can be said,

since his offering comes on account of a sin? If so, perhaps the internal goat atones for him.

And we answer: Although he becomes a leper because of his sins, his offering does not come to atone for those sins, because

there, it is his affliction that atones for him;

it is the suffering of the affliction that atones for the transgression,

and the offering

comes only in order

to permit

the leper

to partake of sacrificial food,

to permit him to eat sacrificial food. Therefore, one can again expound: “For all their sins,” and not for all their impurities. And we again consider this:

Say: an impure nazirite

is the one who achieves atonement through the internal goat: if he did not bring the sin offering that he is obligated to bring before Yom Kippur, the atonement of the goat should benefit him, so that he would not need to bring his individual offering. And we find

that the verse singled him out

to be lenient,

in that he brings turtledoves or young pigeons!?

Rav Hoshaya said: “For all their sins” is written, and not “for all their impurities.”

By contrast, the sin offering of a nazirite who became impure comes so that his period of pure naziriteship can take effect, and not as atonement for a sin.

And we refute this:

But according to Rabbi Elazar HaKappar, who says that a nazirite is also a sinner

because he afflicted himself by abstaining from wine,

what can be said?

And we answer: Rabbi Elazar HaKappar

agrees with Rabbi Shimon,

who does not derive the matter through a binyan av, but rather

says—

it is established from its context

that the atonement of the goat is only for the ritual impurity of the Temple and its sacred offerings.

The Master said: Rabbi Shimon says—

it is established from its context, as it says, “And he shall atone for the Sanctuary, from the impurities,”

and the plain meaning of the verse indicates—

from the impurity of sacred things!

And we consider this: Indeed,

Rabbi Shimon has stated this well,

but why did Rabbi Yehuda disagree with him?

And we answer:

Rabbi Yehuda could say to you—

that

verse, “And he shall atone for the Sanctuary, from the impurities,”

is needed

for another matter: to teach us that the atonement of the Sanctuary shall be like the atonement of the Holy of Holies,

just as he performs it in the innermost place,

as he sprinkles the blood of the bull and the blood of the goat once upward and seven times downward in the Holy of Holies,

so shall he perform it

also

in the Sanctuary,

opposite the curtain!

And Rabbi Shimon

held:

that

requirement, that the sprinkling in the Sanctuary be performed as in the Holy of Holies,

is derived from the words “And so shall he do”

“to the Tent of Meeting”

[and thus it is] derived!

And Rabbi Yehuda

said:

If [it were derived] from that

verse, “And so shall he do to the Tent of Meeting,”

I would have thought

that the blood remaining from the sprinkling in the Holy of Holies is not sprinkled in the Sanctuary opposite the curtain; rather,

we should bring other bull and goat offerings and perform

the sprinkling with their blood, as was done with the first ones. Therefore,

the verse teaches us

through the words “And he shall atone for the Sanctuary” that other bull and goat offerings are not brought; rather, the sprinkling is performed with the blood remaining from the sprinkling in the Holy of Holies.

And Rabbi Shimon

held: The fact that it is written

“And so shall he do to the Tent of Meeting”

means

from it—

the sprinkling is performed with the same blood with which the sprinkling inside was performed—

is implied!

Consequently, the verse “And he shall atone for the Sanctuary, from the impurities” is superfluous, to teach that the atonement of the internal goat is only for the ritual impurity of the Temple and its sacred offerings.

The Master said: One might have thought that this goat atones for all impurities involving sacred things. Therefore, the verse states, “From their rebellious sins, for all their sins”—

sins analogous to rebellious sins: just as rebellious sins are intentional and are not subject to an offering, so too sins are unintentional and are not subject to an offering.

And we consider this:

What is it

that are the sins involving the ritual impurity of the Temple and its sacred offerings that were excluded from the atonement of the goat because they are subject to an individual offering? These are sins of impurity in which

there is

in the case of the impurity

awareness at the outset and awareness at the end.

But

this

sinner

is liable for an offering

individual

offering!

And this is the atonement stated by the Torah. Why, then, was there reason to say that he would achieve atonement through the internal goat, until the tanna had to teach us that he does not achieve atonement through it?